R v Iakopo - [2022] NZHC 1915

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-006031

[2022] NZHC 1915

THE QUEEN

v

MOSE DOUGLAS IAKOPO

Hearing: 5 August 2022

Counsel:

J N Hamilton for Crown

T C Tran and A N Gray for Defendant

Judgment:

5 August 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton. T C Tran, Hamilton.
A N Gray, Hamilton.

R v IAKOPO [2022] NZHC 1915 [5 August 2022]

Charges

[1] Mr Iakopo, you are for sentence on three charges relating to the supply of methamphetamine:

(a)Conspiring to supply methamphetamine, which was charge 3;1

(b)Offering to supply that drug, which was charge 15;2 and

(c)Participating in an organised criminal group, which was charge 24.3

[2] Dealing in methamphetamine is punishable by imprisonment for life. Participating in an organised criminal group is punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

[3] You accepted a sentence indication I gave 26 May this year. I sentence you in accordance with that indication.

Facts

[4] You and your partner were street-level dealers of methamphetamine. You assisted your partner in her role, and also dealt directly with a supplier higher in the chain of command. You also obtained methamphetamine for your own consumption.

[5] On 5 September 2020, you contacted the supplier and discussed the supply and sale of methamphetamine. You told the supplier people were “hungry” because there was “nothing around” and the two of you could “make a killing” if you were able to supply the drug. You agreed to meet, but the meeting did not occur due to a breakdown in communication. This explains the charge of conspiring to supply methamphetamine.

[6] Between 20 October 2020 and 11 November 2020, you offered to supply methamphetamine on five separate occasions. The quantity was specified on each and

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2A)(a); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(c); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A; maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

totalled four grams. This explains the lead charge of offering to supply methamphetamine.

[7] Between 13 and 19 October 2020, you were involved in the attempted retrieval of a package of methamphetamine from a courier depot. You made inquiries with the courier company in an effort to locate the package. The attempt failed as the package had already been intercepted by Police. This accounts for the charge of participating in an organised criminal group.

Starting point

[8] Sentencing in this context turns on role, quantity of drugs and personal circumstance.4

[9] You offered to supply a total of four grams of methamphetamine. You functioned as a street-level dealer under the direction of others. However, your conversation with the supplier implies you had some awareness of the scale of the operation and an expectation you might profit financially. The Crown advances a starting point of two and a half years’ imprisonment. You advance a two-year starting point. I adopt a two-year and two-month starting point. I…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Iakopo

Details

AGLC: R v Iakopo [2022] NZHC 1915
Case: [2022] NZHC 1915
Decision Date: 5 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Iakopo, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, involved sentencing remarks made by Downs J on August 5, 2022. The defendant, Mose Douglas Iakopo, faced three charges related to the supply of methamphetamine, including conspiring to supply, offering to supply, and participating in an organised criminal group. The court acknowledged the severity of methamphetamine dealing, which carries severe penalties, and the defendant's involvement as a street-level dealer under the direction of others. The starting point for sentencing was determined to be three years and two months' imprisonment, with an additional six months for participating in an organised criminal group.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the defendant's role, the quantity of drugs involved, and his personal circumstances. The court also assessed the impact of the defendant's guilty plea, his background, addiction, and rehabilitative efforts. Downs J accepted recommendations from the pre-sentence report and the defendant's lawyer for discounts related to the defendant's addiction, rehabilitative efforts, and time on electronically monitored bail. Ultimately, the court decided on a sentence of 10 months' home detention, considering it a more suitable avenue to support the defendant's continued engagement with support networks and maintain a pro-social lifestyle.

Downs J emphasised the importance of the defendant not squandering the significant opportunity given to him, with family support available. The final orders of the court included sentencing the defendant to 10 months' home detention on the conditions identified in the papers, including special conditions. The court's decision took into account the defendant's background, addiction, rehabilitative efforts, and the potential for home detention to foster his rehabilitation and ultimately benefit the community.

Orders